from the law-itself-prevents-any-discussion dept

One of the biggest problems (hard to pick just one...) with Europe's "right to be forgotten" is that it completely fails to consider the fact that those being asked to forget won't take this sort of government intrusion kindly, especially when requests are more related to burying embarrassments than restoring privacy.

It's been one backfire after another since the debacle began. Every notable request seems to be accompanied by a story about the removal, resulting in the generation of even more web content to be targeted for selective amnesia.

Thank you for your email of 15 August 2014 where you requested the following information:

- “How many times have Ministers in your department, or staff from your department on those Ministers’ behalf, applied to Google or other search engines to have links removed from searches under the ‘right to be forgotten’ following the EU ruling earlier this year? - Please break this figure down by minister. - Please detail the web pages run by your department which have been served a notice by Google that they will not be appearing in certain search results as a result of the right to be forgotten. - How many person-hours have been spent by your staff dealing with the ‘right to be forgotten’ (e.g. writing to or liaising with Google about removal requests)“.

The request pits government transparency against government opacity -- although the latter has been generously extended to European citizens with the "right to be forgotten" law. Unsurprisingly, transparency loses, but only inasmuch as the new law ensures transparency will lose.

To the extent that the “Right to be Forgotten” ruling provides that Individuals (in any capacity “official” or otherwise) have the right - under certain conditions - to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing, the department holds no “official” information pursuant to your request.

Certainly not the desired response, but the desired response would undermine the law, which the UK government really can't do. If UK citizens can ask privately to be forgotten, so can public officials. The wording in the response spins the law positively, which is also expected. The only thing the government could have responded to without undermining the law it has to enforce is total up the hours spent dealing with the paperwork.

Presumably, similar requests have been made to other UK government agencies and presumably they will be greeted with similar responses. While this doesn't shed much light on how many government officials and employees are seeking to cleanse the net of information, we can be assured that any notable request will be duly noted by the entities being asked to forget. The UK government can't answer these questions without negating this (very questionable) right, but the private sector can still let the world know who wants what gone. One of the best checks against government power is the public itself -- even when it's citizens themselves who are using a bad law to request dubious removals.

from the cocksure-offending dept

Back in May last year, Techdirt wrote about how the UK police worked in worryingly-close collaboration with the local anti-piracy group, FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), effectively becoming its private enforcement squad. As we noted recently that case has now passed through the UK courts, with Philip Danks receiving 33 months in prison.

The severe sentence is noteworthy, but what's really interesting here is how Danks was tracked down. TorrentFreak has written a fascinating follow-up piece explaining just how easy he made it. Apparently, Danks's online alias in the torrenting scene was TheCod3r. That seems safe enough, revealing nothing about the person behind it. But as TorrentFreak notes, a quick online search for that term brings up a link to someone else using exactly the same nickname, this time on the dating site Plenty of Fish:

Clicking that link on dating site Plenty of Fish (POF) reveals a whole range of information about a person who, at the very least, uses the same online nickname as Danks. There's no conclusive proof that it's the same person, but several pieces of information begin to build a picture.

In his POF profile, Danks reveals his city as being Willenhall, a small town situated in an area known locally as the Black Country. What FACT would've known soon after the movie leaked online was which cinema it had been recorded in. That turned out to be a Showcase cinema, just a few minutes up the road from Willenhall in the town of Walsall.

Danks also seems to have been incredibly reckless on Facebook:

On May 10, 2013, Danks again took to Facebook, this time to advertise that he was selling copies of movies including Robocop and Captain America.

This continued distribution of copyrighted material particularly aggravated the Court at his sentencing hearing this week, with Danks’ behavior being described as "bold, arrogant and cocksure offending."

The TorrentFreak article concludes by making an important point:

While the list of events above clearly shows a catalog of errors that some might even find amusing, the desire of many pirates to utilize the same nickname across many sites is a common one employed by some of the biggest in the game.

Once these and other similar indicators migrate across into real-life identities and activities (and the ever-present Facebook account of course), joining the dots is not difficult -- especially for the police and outfits like FACT. And once that happens, no amount of VPN encryption of lack of logging is going to put the genie back in the bottle.

In other words, these high-profile wins for the copyright industry are not the result of the police making use of surveillance powers, or of clever sleuthing by organizations like FACT. Rather, they are the direct and largely predictable result of the arrogance and stupidity displayed by those breaking the law.

from the just-making-it-official dept

For many years, we've talked about the very questionable practice by the USTR to set up "Industry Trade Advisory Committees" (ITACs), who had full access to the various documents concerning the trade agreements that were being negotiated. Obviously, for big companies, being one of the very small group of people on the inside, helping to shape trade agreements, is enormously powerful -- especially since industries long ago learned that you can "launder" policy changes that Congress doesn't want to make via the international trade agreement process, thereby putting pressure on Congress to act. It's why we've pointed out that it seems rather unfair that the RIAA has direct access to the TPP agreement, but Senate staffers (including experts on international trade) have been refused access.

Of course, one of the lame responses from the USTR and others is that, technically President Obama's ethics rules forbade "lobbyists" from being on those and other committees. But that was already very narrowly focused just on people who met the official definition of lobbyist. And, you could still have other people who work directly with lobbyists on the committee. So, for example, Neil Turkewitz, a VP with the RIAA is currently on the IP advisory committee. He can do that because he's not technically a "lobbyist" -- he just happens to work for an organization where the main function is lobbying, and where most of his colleagues are lobbyists.

Under the Memorandum and this Revised Guidance, federally registered lobbyists may
not serve on an advisory committee, board, or
commission (hereinafter, “committee”) in an
“individual capacity.” In this Revised Guidance, the term “individual
capacity” refers to
individuals who are appointed to
committees to exercise their
own individual best judgment on
behalf of the government, such as when they
are designated as Special Government Employees
as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202. The lobbyist ban do
es not apply to lobbyists
who are appointed in a
“representative capacity,” meaning that they are appointed for the express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a nongovernmental
entity, a recognizable
group of persons or
nongovernmental entities (an industry sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.), or
state or local government.

The original ban was one of President Obama's apparent "sweeping" changes, and which the President insisted showed how he was reducing the influence of lobbyists in government. Here's what he said back in 2010 about this:

My Administration is committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests that for too long has shaped the national agenda and drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans. Special interests exert this disproportionate influence, in part, by relying on lobbyists who have special access that is not available to all citizens. Although lobbyists can sometimes play a constructive role by communicating information to the government, their service in privileged positions within the executive branch can perpetuate the culture of special interest access that I am committed to changing.

Apparently, the administration is a little less committed to changing that these days. Admittedly, the White House was somewhat pressured into this by a lawsuit from some lobbyists who (I'm not joking) argued their First Amendment rights were being violated. While a lower court rejected this argument, earlier this year, the DC Circuit appeals court claimed it was a legitimate First Amendment issue and that "the ban pressures them to limit their constitutional right to petition."

Frankly, that's ridiculous. Almost no one is allowed on these advisory committees. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee has a grand total of 16 people. I'm sure there's no way in hell I would be allowed on it. Does that mean that my constitutional right to petition the government has been denied? Of course not, because that's a ridiculous interpretation of the First Amendment.

The Appeals Court ruling wasn't the end of the case, as it was was sent back to the lower court for further review -- but it appears that the Obama administration has effectively thrown in the towel and will allow the lobbyists back onto the committees that none of us are likely to ever be allowed on. Because that process wasn't corrupt enough already...

from the because-you-can't-know-how-low-you'll-sink-until-you-try dept

Late last month, some audacious pranksters (or possibly ultra-dangerous individuals) snuck to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge's two towers and replaced the American flags with the universal symbol for surrender: white flags. Or to be more specific, bleached-white American flags.

If you can't read/see the tweet, it's sent from @BicycleLobby and says the following:

Earlier today we hoisted two white flags to signal our complete surrender of the Brooklyn Bridge bicycle path to pedestrians.

The New York Daily News fell for it. More surprisingly, the Associated Press did as well, infecting an untold number of local outlets with its automated breaking news feed. In their hurry to be proven fools, the Daily News and the AP ignored both a) EVERY TWEET EVER MADE BY THE ACCOUNT and b) the second line of the account's profile.

An all-powerful enterprise. Parody account.

The parody account heaped more scorn on the two news agencies, suggesting they google "Dorothy Rabinowitz," the inspiration for the account. Rabinowitz, a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, once famously said, "The bike lobby is an all-powerful enterprise," as she attempted to protect average New Yorkers from the two-wheeled menace that was "begriming" upscale neighborhoods with "blazing blue Citi Bank bikes."

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s office has issued a subpoena for information about the Twitter account @BicycleLobby.

The anonymous, satirical account announced Friday that the company Twitter had received a summons to appear before a grand jury against John Doe defendant in a criminal investigation.

“On Monday, Twitter alerted this account that it had received a subpoena from the office of the District Attorney of the County of New York,” the account tweeted Friday afternoon — clarifying that it was being “100%” serious about the legal notice.

Any and all records including but not limited to account opening documents, user Contact information (subscriber information, including email addresses, billing information, associated telephone numbers), Group Contact information, and all available IP logs for the Twitter account(s) associated with the following…

If Twitter fails to do so, it may be facing "imprisonment for one year." The subpoena also warns Twitter against notifying the end user:

Pursuant to 18 USC § 2705(b), this Court orders Twitter not to notify or otherwise disclose the existence or execution of this subpoena/order to any associated user/accountholder, until the conclusion of this investigation or otherwise by court order.

If Twitter didn't just shrug this off, then it's likely the investigation has concluded or the court has rescinded its order. The subpoena went out on July 23rd and the account holder was notified August 4th. The person behind the parody account has retained legal assistance, not that he or she should actually need it. The NYPD's investigative "technique" apparently consists of grabbing as much data as possible (surveillance, cell tower dumps, "DNA," parody Twitter accounts) and running it through some sort of angsty, terrorism-fueled centrifuge until either a) discretionary spending is increased for counterterrorism units or b) the actual culprit outs him or herself by walking into the police station, dripping with blood flag bleach and shouting "DETECTIVE!" until someone starts paying attention.

Cops were similarly stumped, although they hoped some answers might come from the quintet caught on blurry video crossing the bridge about 20 minutes before the tower lights went out and the flags were stolen around 3:30 a.m…

The graveyard-shift cops who missed the trespassers jumping a locked gate, scaling the two towers and hanging the bleached flags will not be disciplined, police sources told The News.

The answer, of course, is to add more cameras to the exact spot where something has already happened. Someone "inside the police department" posited that it could have been a dry run for a terrorist attack, and the response has been a lot of barn-door kicking and the hassling of any other person who might cross the Brooklyn Bridge on foot during the early hours of the morning.

This clumsy fear-driven thinking is only exacerbated by willing accomplices like the NY Daily News -- the same entity so quick to claim a parody Twitter account did it -- which rushed out this reductio ad absurdum headline the next morning:

That's how the NYPD ends up throwing more cameras at the same spot the previous cameras captured the flag-switchers at work, as though more unwatched eyes will somehow prevent an attack. And that's how a local judge signs off on a subpoena ordering Twitter to hand over user data on a clearly parodic Twitter account -- one that has also claimed to have faked the moon landing. If our main "weapon" in the War on Terror is "swift and disproportionate" reaction, no wonder everyone in the intel community believes we're "losing."

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

A copy of emails sent to or from the CIA's FOIA office regarding the FOIA Portal's Technical Issues.

According to the CIA's current FOIA website: "FOIA requests cannot currently be made online due to technical issues. Requests can still be submitted via the US Postal Service and facsimile."

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Please also include any attachments to these emails.

Given the agency's disdain for the FOIA process (second only to the NYPD), I'm sure this sort of outage is viewed as a feature, not a bug. But whatever internal musings the CIA had about its FOIA portal issues will apparently be staying internal for the time being.

The CIA rejected Morisy's request in full, basically stating that searching for emails is hard work and that the requester could have at least bothered to know exactly who was talking about the portal issues and exactly when they were doing it before making the request.

The FOIA requires requesters to "reasonably describe" the information they seek so that professional employees familiar with the subject matter can locate responsive information with a reasonable amount of effort. Commonly this equates to a requirement that the documents must be locatable through the indexing of our various systems. Extremely broad or vague requests or requests requiring research do not satisfy this requirement. We require requesters seeking any form of "electronic communications" such as emails, to provide the specific "to" and "from" recipients, time frame and subject. We note that you have provided the subject only. Therefore, we must decline your request.

Obviously, a FOIA requester isn't going to know these sorts of specifics beforehand, hence THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. As MuckRock's JPat Brown points out, Twitter user Mythosopher had perhaps the best response to this refusal...

You can't see any emails or know who sent or received them. But you must request the exact email and who sent and received it.

The CIA has pretty much ensured many requests will be found too cumbersome to comply with. It used 2013's brief sequester as an excuse to shut down its office in charge of declassifying historical documents and fold it in with the FOIA department's steady stream of extension requests and denials. And the CIA joins an ever-lengthening list of federal agencies completely mystified by internal email systems. Oddly, this same government expects the US public to trust that agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA and countless law enforcement entities will be able to find the needles in your personal email haystacks -- obtained in bulk with FISA court orders, NSLs or old-fashioned open-ended, non-specific warrants.

The CIA itself has already raided internal networks to root out Senate staffers and whistleblowers, but no one heard anyone complain about the lack of specifics making the job too tough to do. It's only when the public asks to dip into the government's business that these agencies suddenly start acting like the impossible is being demanded.

from the you-said-what-now? dept

The rather astoundingly named Josh Earnest is the recently appointed press secretary of President Obama, and he's kicked off his tenure with quite a whopper: insisting that, despite complaints from basically every corner, President Obama really is "the most transparent President in history." As you may recall, President Obama promised upon election that he would be "the most open and transparent" President, and one of his first orders of business in the White House was to promise the same.

Of course, as many folks have been documenting for years, the reality has been anything but. The Obama administration has been ridiculously secretive for years, when it comes to FOIA requests, literally setting records in denying them. The NYT's former executive editor, who has covered many administrations, has directly noted that the Obama administration was the most secretive she could recall. Even federal judges have regularly dinged the administration for refusing to hand over documents required by law. As Stephen Colbert has noted, the administration is really only good at the most transparent bullshit legally allowed.

In fact, just as Mr. Earnest was insisting that the Obama administration was so damn transparent, Mother Jones had a good article about how often the Obama administration was making use of the "state secrets privilege" to get lawsuits tossed out, such as in various no fly list challenges. In 2008, then candidate Obama insisted that the use of the state secrets privilege by the government was dangerous. But, now that he's in charge, he's quick to use it himself:

In 2008, Obama griped that the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege "more than any other previous administration" and used it to getentire lawsuits thrown out of court. Critics noted that deploying the state secrets privilege allowed the Bush administration to shut down cases that might have revealed government misconduct or caused embarrassment, including those regarding constitutionally dubious warrantless wiretapping and the CIA's kidnapping and torture of Khaled el-Masri, a German car salesman the government had mistaken for an alleged Al Qaeda leader with the same name. After Obama took office, his attorney general, Eric Holder, promised to significantly limit the use of this controversial legal doctrine. Holder vowed never to use it to "conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error" or "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government."

So, given all this evidence that the Obama administration is incredibly secretive, what could Earnest's reasoning possibly be? Well, you see, President Obama has released his visitor logs at the White House. Because, you know, that's what everyone really means when they talk about White House transparency.

Earnest noted that previous administrations had “gone to the Supreme Court” to prevent the release of White House visitor information, but that the Obama administration “releases it voluntarily on the Internet on a quarterly basis.”

“Reporters for years clamored to get access to fundraisers the president hosted or attended that were hosted in private homes,” Earnest continued. “Reporters now have access to those when this president goes to a private home.”

So, the President has made a few tiny concessions to transparency on issues that really don't matter at all, but has doubled down on secrecy on the things that do actually matter.

Sure, I know that the Press Secretary's job is to basically cover for the President and do whatever possible to defend the White House's claims, no matter how bogus, but wouldn't the world be better off if there were actually a tiny bit of honesty from such folks? They could admit that they've tried and failed. They could say that transparency promises seemed easier from the outside, but turned out to be more difficult in reality. They could admit that it's still a work in progress. Any of those would at least acknowledge reality. Pretending reality isn't reality doesn't convince anyone. In fact, it just appears to be yet another example of the very non-transparency that everyone's complaining about in the first place.

from the frightened-of-sunlight dept

Techdirt has commented many times on the undulysecretivenature of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks. Despite earlier claims that everything would definitely be wrapped up last year, things are still dragging on, with the next round of negotiations taking place in Canada. Although it seems hardly possible, the government there apparently wants to make the meeting even less transparent than its predecessors, as this post on the Council of Canadians reports:

The only information that has been publicly released is a one-sentence notice posted June 24 on the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development website stating that "Negotiators, subject matter experts and other officials will meet in Ottawa, Canada, from July 3-12. No ministerial meeting is being scheduled on the margin of the officials meeting in Ottawa."

New Zealand law professor Jane Kelsey has attended many of the rounds as a registered stakeholder, and, when that process ended without any explanation, as an observer. She describes Canada's secrecy as "unprecedented.”

"There can only be one reason for withholding the details: to shut down the remaining minimal access we have to negotiators, a number of whom are happy to meet with us," Kelsey says. "When governments are so afraid of informed public debate, they clearly do not believe they can sell the merits of what they are negotiating."

"Everyone is indulging in a charade where [the TPP] negotiations are going forward. It’s the biggest game in town, but I’m not convinced TPP will see the light of day," says Lawrence Herman, a Toronto-based trade lawyer formerly with Cassels Brock.

The situation is not much more clear with Canada’s agreement-in-principle reached with Europe last October. Officials say CETA is taking longer than anticipated to render into legal text, but observers believe the deal has run into substantive roadblocks.

Also perplexing is why Canada has not ratified the foreign investment protection agreement with China, called FIPA, when the two sides signed the treaty almost two years ago.

Putting those facts together, and you have an embarrassing inability of the Canadian government to close any of its high-profile trade agreements, which it has set such great store by. Clearly, the last thing it wants is any leak that might make achieving that even harder for TPP. Of course, if such a total lock-down on the talks is necessary to have even a slim hope of concluding them, that suggests support for the agreement among the TPP nations is extremely precarious. If it weren't, TPP could stand a little public scrutiny of the kind that the Canadians are doing their utmost to avoid.

from the those-who-can't,-administrate dept

I don't know what possesses certain individuals and entities to address their screwups by attempting to bury them, especially in an age where a wealth of information is still (mostly) a Google search away. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for errors of judgement? By opting for the "hasty burial" method of reputation management, these entities almost invariably direct more attention to the very thing they wanted everyone to forget. It happens so frequently, it even has its own name.

The student, identified only as "John Doe," had sex with his accuser on September 8th, 2013, according to details of the case obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both Doe and his accuser had been drinking. By several accounts, the sex was consensual. The accuser sent Doe a text message beforehand asking him if he had a condom. She also texted a friend and clearly announced her intention to have sex with Doe.

But rape was declared in the sober light of day, thanks in part to an assistant professor's bizarre profiling of Doe as a rapist.

After that night, the accuser spoke with several Occidental employees, including Danielle Dirks, an assistant professor of sociology. Dirks told the accuser that Doe "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports team], and was 'from a good family.'"

Classic rapist. High grades, played sports, good family. Occidental obviously holds its rapists to a higher standard, seeing as Doe fit right in with "the other rapists on campus."

One week later, the rape complaint was filed. The police, as mentioned above, investigated it and deemed the interaction to be drunken sex between two consensual adults. Occidental College, however, was feeling the pressure from up top -- specifically, a recent federal investigation into its rape prevention policies. So it overreacted.

[T]he college hired attorney Marilou Mirkovich to investigate the matter. Mirkovich concluded that the female student did indeed consent to sex. However, since she was intoxicated, her consent was invalid, according to Mirkovich.

(Interesting point, but wouldn't that mean they raped each other? Or is consent vis-a-vis intoxication completely malleable to each situation, in order to better comply with societal expectations?)

So it's unsurprising that Occidental would be unhappy about these documents being displayed online for all to see and judge. It is equally unsurprising, however, that yesterday a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge denied the college's request to seal certain documents relating to the case—specifically, approximately 180 pages comprising an investigative report and accompanying evidence that included interviews with witnesses and the alleged victim.

Unsurprising, indeed. And yet, the university attempted to bury its embarrassment with a straight face, expressing a completely belated "concern" about the personal information contained in the investigative report... four months after it went public. To which the judge responded:

I don't understand why [it] is so pressing in June when it wasn't so pressing in February.

That's the power of negative press. That open-and-shut investigation that forced a dangerous rapist valedictorian off campus was suddenly an ugly, festering byproduct of Occidental's desire to show the US Government that was Very Serious about combating sexual assault and completely willing to offer up as many scapegoats as needed until the pyre of shame receded to an easily-ignored flicker. It was even willing to find as many "experts" as needed to paint Doe into the "rapist" corner, even if the supporting statements made were facially moronic.

But just asking the judge wasn't enough. Occidental tried to get FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) to pull its coverage while awaiting the judge's incredulous/sarcastic response.

Occidental managed to bully one student off of its campus, but its limited reach means everyone else remains unaffected, no matter how many requests its law firm sends out. The judge's refusal to assist in patching up the school's self-inflicted wounds should send a message to other entities that find themselves in similar situations. Before attempting a quick burial, consider the possibility that doing so will only result in wider coverage. If you still feel your temporarily wounded pride is worth more than your long-term reputation, go ahead. But don't be surprised if it only results in more criticism.

from the a-bit-more-patch-than-fix,-but-still... dept

If anything useful has been redacted from documents obtained with by a FOIA request, chances are the b(5) exemption has been invoked. Theoretically narrow in scope, the exemption has expanded to cover everything from a historical recounting of the CIA's involvement in the Bay of Pigs to someone's hand-scrawled commentary ("What a bunch of crap!") on a bill asking for Pakistan to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Here's the entirety of the exemption according to FOIA statutes.

Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency

The reality of the situation is that nearly every agency has deployed the exemption to redact information at one point or another. Almost prophetically, the b(5) exemption claims the withheld information can only be released to "agencies in litigation" with the withholding party. And there are certainly plenty of "agencies" engaged in litigation with these government entities, albeit mainly in the form of FOIA lawsuits.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Cornyn, the ranking Judiciary Republican, introduced the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, which would strengthen Obama administration transparency mandates and reform one of the most abused FOIA exemptions.

President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder directed federal agencies in 2009 to update their FOIA guidelines and operate with a presumption of openness. However, many agencies ignored the directive.

The bill would codify the administration's reform directives and force responsive agencies to limit use of the b(5) exemption to only information that would cause "foreseeable harm" if disclosed. Granted, that still leaves government agencies with plenty of room to maneuver, but it should trim down the number of b(5) redactions applied to documents like a Presidential Policy Directive ordering the State Department to be more transparent.

On the indisputable plus side, documents over 25 years old are no longer subject to this exemption, meaning long-withheld documents like the previously mentioned Bay of Pigs recounting will no longer be withheld for bogus "deliberative" reasons.

If this bill passes the Senate, it will likely be merged with a House FOIA reform bill being shepherded by Darrell Issa and Elijah Cummings. From that point, it will need to emerge mostly unscathed from the sausage-making on its way to the President. If it does survive intact, longtime FOIA offenders may have to find new reasons to apply black bars and withhold pages. Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of FOIA responses containing nothing but page-after-full-page of redactions.

from the secret-agencies-don't-like-transparency dept

I guess it's no surprise that the CIA would be institutionally against things like transparency and freedom of information. However, in the last couple weeks there have been two separate lawsuits filed by well known Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activists over the CIA's general bad behavior in response to FOIA requests. First up is Michael Morisy and Muckrock, who have sued over a variety of failures by the CIA to adequately respond to a long list of FOIA requests that really should not be problematic at all.

...the Central Intelligence Agency has a track record of holding itself apart from, and largely above, the Freedom of Information Act, consistently ignoring deadlines, refusing to work with requesters, and capriciously rejecting even routine requests for what should be clearly public information.

After listing out all of the FOIA requests that the CIA failed on that Muckrock is suing over, Morisy notes:

Additionally, we are suing against the CIA's general practice of rejecting requests for email records which do not include the time frame, subject, and to and from fields, regardless of what other information is including to help narrow the request. This practice replaces the required functional test for whether or not a request reasonably describes the records sought with a per se test that automatically rejects any request for email records based on whether or not it includes all four pieces of information, virtually ensuring that vast amounts of CIA email records go unprocessed and unreleased.

Separately, two FOIA ninjas, Ryan Shapiro and Jason Leopold (both of whom have written about before, including the FBI declaring Shapiro a systematic problem for filing too many FOIA requests) have sued the CIA as well for its failure to respond to their FOIA requests concerning the CIA's spying on the Senate Intelligence staffers investigating the CIA's torture program.

"It's time for the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community to recognize transparency not as a threat, but rather as an essential component of viable democracy," Shapiro said.

The FOIA request specifically was about communications between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA which set up the terms under which the Senate investigators would have access to CIA documents, among other related documents. As with Muckrock, it appears that the CIA basically has just decided to ignore the request entirely.

Yes, the CIA lives in a world of secrecy, but it's supposed to follow the law, and that includes living under FOIA transparency rules. It seems to be ignoring those at every turn, so hopefully these two lawsuits will begin to force the CIA to actually obey the law.